San Fran Ban NO MORE!

This is a discussion on San Fran Ban NO MORE! within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
This is good news on the surface, but we haven't heard the last of this yet, folks. Count on it.
...

This is good news on the surface, but we haven't heard the last of this yet, folks. Count on it.

The pols in 'Frisco have already shown they don't give a damn about their citizens' gun rights, and they sure don't care if they waste taxpayer money on frivolous litigation.

Remember, this is a state court ruling. This is headed to the Federal appeals court level, without a doubt. Guess where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is based? Yep, San Francisco.

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade here, but the opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

I doubt that this case is appealable to federal court. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction; generally a case must either involve a question of federal law or it must involve parties from two different states. Furthermore, a decision by a state court, like the CA Superior Ct. is not appealable to the 9th Circuit, it is only appealable to the SCOTUS as a last resort IF it involves a federal constitutional question.

This case does not invoke federal law because it was argued and decided upon the grounds that a CA State Preemption law prohibited municipalities like SF from passing this sort of law. The only question was whether or not this law applied to SF, which BTW it clearly does. This was NOT a 2nd Amendment case.

This case could be appealed to the CA Ct. of Appeals (if there is one) and then to the the CA Supreme Court, but I don't see how it is going to make it into federal court. Generally, once your state court appeals are exhausted, the only appeal left it to the U.S. Supreme Court if you can claim that the U.S. Constitution has been violated by the lower ruling. SF certainly doesn't have a claim that the state preemption law violates the U.S. Constitution, so I don't see them even bothering.

Additionally, the SCOTUS has almost complete discretion in deciding which cases it hears, and this certainly wouldn't be one that it would accept. (It has refused to hear a 2nd Amendment case for roughly 80 years)

IIRC, at the time this ban was passed, even the SF Municipal Gov't acknowledged that it was invalid under the state preemption law. There are no close questions in this case, and I kinda doubt that they will even go through all the state appellate proceedings, unless they really want to burn some tax dollars. Then again, thats what this whole thing has been about so far, making a meaningless statement on the taxpayers bill.

You make some very valid points. You obviously have more legal knowledge than I do, so I'll defer to your expertise. But I stand by what I said. We have not heard the last of this issue. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors are rabid anti-gun zealots. They may have been stopped this time, but they'll try again.

SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge on Monday overturned a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco, siding with gun owners who said the city did not have the authority to prohibit the weapons.

Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by a rising number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. San Francisco recorded at least 94 murders last year, a 10-year high.

The National Rifle Association sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

"My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. "Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share."

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

Warren's decision was not unexpected. In 1982, a California appeals court nullified an almost identical San Francisco gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law.

But years later, in 1998, a state appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on the sale of so-called Saturday night specials, small and cheap handguns that city leaders said contributed to violent crime. And three years ago, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Los Angeles and Alameda counties, saying local governments could ban the possession and sale of weapons on government property, such as fairgrounds.

That decision, however, did not address the issue of private property sales and possession, as outlined in the San Francisco law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also is considering a challenge to a similar handgun ban in the District of Columbia that alleges the law violates a Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms.

The NRA lawsuit here avoided those allegations.

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

You make some very valid points. You obviously have more legal knowledge than I do, so I'll defer to your expertise. But I stand by what I said. We have not heard the last of this issue. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors are rabid anti-gun zealots. They may have been stopped this time, but they'll try again.

Like ibex said, we won a battle, but the war isn't over yet.

I agree completely. I am pretty sure that CA has an intermediate appellate court, so it would go normally go there next if the city appeals. I would hope that they would give it up, but like you say, they are rabid antigunners and it is the taxpayers footing the bill. After that court, it could be appealed to the CA Supreme ct. but IIRC they can choose not to hear it. From there, federal constitutional issues could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they don't have a snowballs chance in hades of getting it heard there.

The judge basically said that the ban will illegal due to the states law. He basically told the anti's that in order for it to be legal was to change the state law. Wanna bet what they will be trying to do at election time.

Me personally, I would love for them to have their little ban. Then 58% of the people that voted for it will reap what they sow. The gays are yelling about being bashed now, what do they think will happen after the ban goes into effect? (and I am sure that some in this group voted NO to the proposal).

For the 42% that voted against it, I would feel bad for them. They were/are the smart ones with a brain.